Jesus and the Rapture

Dr. Andy Woods

Some of the HTML versions of the articles have errors.
If you have view problems try reading the PDF version.

CHAPTER #

Jesus and the rapture

by Andy Woods

Introduction

Did Jesus ever refer
to the rapture? When this question is asked, two passages usually come to mind:
Matt 24:40-41 and John 14:1-4. The purpose of this paper is to show that although
Christ did not refer to the rapture in Matt 24:40-41, He did refer to the
rapture in John 14:1-4. The first part of this paper is an examination of
Matthew 24:40-41 as a potential rapture passage. This section seeks to dissuade
readers from connecting Christ's statement in Matt 24:40-41 to the rapture
through an examination of the role of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew's overall
argument, through an examination of the textual details within and surrounding
Matthew 24:40-41, and by noting the inadequacy of the arguments for a rapture
interpretation of Matthew 24:40-41. The second part of the paper is an
examination of John 14:1-4 as a potential rapture passage. This section will attempt
to argue that Christ was referring to the rapture in John 14:1-4 by making
several preliminary observations that should create an openness to the rapture
interpretation, by observing the textual details of John 14:1-4 that point in
the direction of a rapture interpretation, and by showing the inadequacy of the
alternative non-rapture interpretations of John 14:1-4.

Matthew 24:40-41

Matthew 24:40-41
says, "Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken,
and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will
be taken and one will be left." It
is common for popular prophecy writers to assign a rapture significance to
these verses.[1] A popular 1970's Christian song by Larry
Norman similarly interpreted these verses as pertaining to the rapture: "A
man and wife asleep in bed. She hears a noise and turns her head, he's gone. I wish
we'd all been ready.Two men
walking up a hill. One disappears and one's left standing still. I wish we'd
all been ready." However, a close examination of the passage demonstrates
that it is unlikely that it is referring to the rapture.

Matthew's Argument and the Olivet Discourse

Matthew's Jewish-Christian Audience

Understanding
the role of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew's overall argument weakens the
notion of attaching a rapture significance to Matt 24:40-41. Although no
specific target audience is mentioned, various clues make it apparent that
Matthew had a believing Jewish audience in mind.[2]
The Jewish nature of the book is apparent by noting several factors. First, the
book contains a disproportionate number of Old Testament citations and allusions.
Of the book's 129 Old Testament references, 53 are direct citations and 76 are
allusions. On thirteen occasions, Christ’s actions are said to be a fulfillment
of the Old Testament. Second, the book follows a fivefold division. The five
major sermons of the book are delineated through the repetition of the
concluding formula “when He had finished saying these things” (7:28; 11:1;
13:53; 19:1; 26:1). This fivefold structure would have immediately been
recognizable to the Jewish mind since Jews had a tendency to categorize items,
such as the Book of Psalms and the Pentateuch, according to a fivefold
division. Third, although originally written in Greek, the book evidences a
Hebraistic style, parallelism, and elaboration.

Fourth, tote (“then” or “at that time”)
reflects a Jewish style. While this term is employed ninety times in Matthew,
it is only used six times in Mark, fourteen times in Luke, and ten times in
John. Fifth, the vocabulary of the book is distinctly Jewish. The following
Jewish terms are found in the book: David, Jerusalem as the Holy City (4:5;
27:53), city of the great king (5:35), lost sheep of the house of Israel (10:6;
15:24), kingdom of God, and kingdom of heaven.[3]
Sixth, the subject matter of the topics covered is distinctly Jewish. Among the
topics covered are the Law, ceremonial defilements, Sabbath, kingdom,
Jerusalem, temple, Messiah, prophecy, prophets, David, Abram, Moses, scribes,
Sadducees, and Pharisees.

Seventh, Matthew’s genealogy reveals a Jewish
audience. Matthew traces Christ back to David and Abraham rather than back to
Adam (Luke 3). Eighth, Matthew places a special focus upon the Apostle Peter.
Because Peter was the apostle to the circumcised (Gal 2:7-8), Matthew’s focus
on Peter harmonizes with the Jewish emphasis of his book. Ninth, unlike the
other Gospels that explain Jewish customs to Gentile audiences, Matthew leaves
these same Jewish customs unexplained. This is true not only with regard to
Jewish rulers (Matt 2:1, 22; 14:1; Luke 2:1-2; 3:1-2) but it is also true with
regard to ceremonial cleansing (Matt 15:2; Mark 7:3-4). The customs that
Matthew does explain are of Roman rather than Jewish origin (Matt 27:15).
Although some of Matthew’s writings seem to anticipate at least some kind of
Gentile audience by giving the interpretation of some Jewish words (1:23;
27:33, 46), it does seem to be a general rule that Matthew provides fewer
interpretations of Jewish customs than any other Gospel writer.

Tenth, various church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Origen, and
Eusebius believed that Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience. Not only was Matthew
written to a Jewish audience but to a believing audience as well. In other
words, Matthew’s audience primarily consisted of Jewish Christians. Both
Eusebius[4]
and Origen[5]
indicated that Matthew was written to those within Judaism who came to believe.

Matthew's Purpose and Argument

Matthew wrote in order to accomplish three purposes.[6]
First, he wrote to convince his Jewish audience that the Christ in whom they had
believed was indeed the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. Thus, Matthew shows that
Christ was the rightful heir to the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. Matthew
appeals to a variety of devices to accomplish this purpose such as genealogies,
fulfilled prophecy, messianic titles, kingdom teachings, and miracles. Because
the Jewish understanding was that the kingdom would be immediately established
upon the arrival of the king (Isa 9:6-7; Matt 20:20-21), the next logical
question that a Jew would ask is, “if Christ is indeed the Jewish king then
where is His kingdom?”

Thus, Matthew wrote for the second purpose of
explaining why the kingdom had been postponed despite the fact that the king
had already arrived. In order to accomplish this purpose, Matthew carefully
traces the kingdom program. Here Matthew explains the kingdom’s offer to the
nation (3:2; 4:17; 10:5-7; 15:24), its rejection by the nation (11–12;
21–23; 26–27), the present interim program for those who will
inherit the kingdom (sons of the kingdom) due to Israel’s rejection of the kingdom
(13; 16:18), and the nation’s eventual acceptance of the kingdom (23:38-39;
24:14, 31; 25:31). The notion of a past rejection and future acceptance of the
kingdom by national Israel would lead to the question, “what is God doing in
the present?”

Thus, Matthew wrote for the third purpose of
explaining God’s interim program. Here, Matthew introduces the interim program
that the sons of the kingdom will experience (Matt 13), as well as the advent
of the church (Matt 16:18; 18:17; 28:18-20). The Church Age represents God’s
present earthly program between Israel’s past rejection and future acceptance
of the King and His kingdom. Since Christ’s disciples would play foundational
roles in the church (Eph 2:20), Matthew explains how Christ prepared them not only
for His death but also for their new role in the church age.

At the time of writing, the Gentiles were becoming
more prominent in the church. The Jewish believers needed an explanation for
this Gentile inclusion. Thus, Matthew explains how God’s interim program would
thrust the Gentiles into prominence (2:1-12; 8:11-12; 13:38; 15:22-28). In sum,
Matthew selectively (John 20:30-31; 21:25) includes material from Christ’s life
in order to accomplish these purposes. Therefore, the message of Matthew
is the confirmation to Jewish Christians that Jesus is their predicted king who
ushered in an interim program by building the sons of the kingdom into the
church in between Israel’s past rejection and future acceptance of her King.

In addition to this overarching purpose, Matthew wrote to
accomplish three sub-purposes. First, Matthew wanted to confirm the
Jewish Christians in their faith. He wanted them to understand that the Jesus
in whom they had believed was indeed the Jewish king. This was true in spite of
the fact that the kingdom had not immediately materialized according to their
expectations and instead God’s program had taken a new direction. Second,
Matthew wrote to offer the believing Jews an explanation regarding Gentile
inclusion in God’s present program. This was an explanation that the believing
Jews desperately needed since the church was on the verge of becoming
predominately Gentile through the coming three missionary journeys launched
from Syrian Antioch. Thus, Matthew wrote his Gospel from this very locale for
the purpose of assisting the church through this delicate transition. Third,
Matthew wanted to encourage the Jewish Christians. Thus, he explained that
although Israel had rejected her king, God was going to use this negative act
for the positive purpose of including the Gentiles. He was also going to
restore the kingdom to Israel in the future.

Matthew's Structure

A major structural clue in Matthew's Gospel is the
repetition of the concluding phrase “when He had finished saying these things”
(7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). This formula alerts the reader to the book’s
five major discourses. Each discourse concludes with this phrase. Thus, the
five major discourses include the Sermon on the Mount (5–7), the
missionary discourse (10), the kingdom parables (13), the discourse on humility
(18), and the Olivet Discourse (24–25).[7]

In order to explain to his Jewish-Christian audience
how Christ can be the Jewish king and yet at the same time the Jewish kingdom
is absent and the Gentiles are prominent in the mystery age, Matthew develops a
well-organized argument. First, he establishes Christ’s messianic identity and
traces Christ’s offer of the kingdom to Israel (1–10). Second, he shows
the nation’s rejection of this offer (11–12; 20:29–23:39). Third,
he explains God’s inclusion of the Gentiles in the mystery age during the
kingdom’s absence and postponement (13:1–20:28). Matthew then develops the
final part of his argument. Although the kingdom has been postponed in the
present, it will be re-offered to and accepted by the nation in the future.
Although he has alluded to this restoration earlier (17:1-13; 19:28; 20:20-28),
Matthew most clearly develops the idea of the kingdom’s restoration to Israel
in his fifth and final discourse section known as the Olivet Discourse
(24–25).[8]
Matthew’s Jewish audience would have been familiar with Old Testament Scripture
predicting Israel’s conversion as a result of the Great Tribulation (Jer 30:7;
Dan 9:24-27). The Olivet Discourse is simply an amplification of these
prophecies (24:15). Matthew includes this final phase of his argument in order
to give his Jewish readers hope that present Gentile prominence in the mystery
age does not mean that God has forsaken His covenant promises to His chosen
nation.

Emphasis of the Olivet Discourse

Matthew’s emphasis upon Israel’s restoration in the Olivet
Discourse grows out of the final verses of the previous chapter (23:37-39).
There, Christ expressed His desire to gather (episynagō) Israel. However, the nation had rejected the
kingdom offer. Christ promises that the time would come when the nation would
acknowledge Him as the Messiah by chanting a messianic Psalm (Ps 118:26; Matt
21:9) thereby allowing Christ to return and re-gather (episynagō) His nation (23:39). Thus, the Olivet Discourse
furnishes the circumstances through which Israel’s restoration and final
regathering will be achieved (24:31).

If the Olivet Discourse is a natural extension of Christ's
promise to restore the nation in the future, interpreters should not be
surprised to discover the Jewish nature of this discourse. After all, Christ's
promise of restoration at the end of Matthew 23 was given exclusively to
Israel. Christ makes this clear through the twofold repetition of the word
"Jerusalem" in Matt 23:37a. Moreover, various Jewish references, such
as the destruction of the second temple (24:1-2), the offer of the kingdom
(24:14), Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks (24:15), the holy place
(24:15), the desecration of the temple (24:15), the flight into the Judean
wilderness (24:16), the Sabbath (24:20), the elect (24:22), the Messiah (24:23-24),
and the Davidic Throne (25:31), found throughout the discourse make it clear
that the Olivet Discourse primarily concerns Israel.[9]
In sum, the Olivet Discourse plays a critical role in Matthew's overall
presentation to his Jewish- Christian audience. As explained, his inclusion of
the Olivet Discourse is designed to give his readers hope of a future Jewish
kingdom. Such a theme should have a bearing upon how Matt 24:40-41 is
interpreted. Rather than understanding these verses as relating to Church Age
truth, such as the rapture, it is better to understand them against the
backdrop of the Tribulation judgment leading to Israel's restoration.

Textual Details Within and Surrounding Matthew 24:40-41

Not only does Matthew's overall argument mitigate understanding
Matt 24:40-41 as the rapture, but the details of the text within and surrounding
Matt 24:40-41 also weaken a rapture interpretation of these verses. Such
details include the passage's connection with Noah's day, the order of the
other Matthean judgments, and the Lukan parallel passage.

The Connection to Noah's Day

The context of Matthew 24:40-41 relates directly to what
transpired in Noah's day, which is described in the immediately preceding
verses (Matt 24:37-39). These earlier verses say, "For the coming of the
Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the
Flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the
day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came
and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be" (Matt
24:37-39). These verses are then followed by verses 40-41, which say,
"Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will
be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken,
and one will be left." The
connective tote, which begins verse
40 links verses 40-41 with verses 37-39. Because of this connective, if we can
understand who was taken in Noah's day, it will help us understand who will be
taken in verses 40-41.

When verse 39 says,
"the flood came and took them all away," it is a reference to
the unbelievers who did not enter the ark and consequently were taken away by
the Flood. While the unbelievers of Noah's day were taken away in judgment,
Noah was preserved from being swept away in judgment thereby allowing him to enter
the next dispensation of Human Government. Thus, by way of analogy, the man
taken from the field and the woman taken from grinding at the mill (40-41) are
unbelievers being taken away into judgment at the Lord's return. While the
unbelievers will be taken away in judgment, the believers will be left behind
thereby allowing them to enter the next dispensation of the millennial kingdom.
Such an order is the exact opposite of the rapture, which will take believers
away into eternal bliss and leave the unbelievers behind upon the earth to
experience divine judgment (1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:50-58). Thus, the more
verses 40-41 are connected with the events of Noah's day as depicted in the
same context, the less probable it is to ascribe to verses 40-41 a rapture
interpretation.

This view that Matt 24:40-41 refers to judgment at the
Second Advent rather than the rapture is held by numerous credible Bible
interpreters. According to Walvoord:

According to Matthew 24:40-41, "Then there will be
two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will
be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left." Because at the rapture, believers
will be taken out of the world, some have confused this with the rapture of the
church. Here, however, the situation is the reverse. The one who is left, is
left to enter the kingdom; the one who is taken, is taken in judgment. This is
in keeping with the illustration of the time of Noah when the ones taken away
are the unbelievers.[10]

Feinberg also explains:

It will be a taking away judicially and in judgment.
The ones left will enjoy the blessings of Christ's reign on earth, just as Noah
and his family were left to continue on earth. This is the opposite of the
rapture, where those who are left go into the judgment of the Great
Tribulation.[11]

Showers echoes:

Jesus was not referring to the Rapture of the
church in Matthew 24. When that event takes place, all the saved will be
removed from the earth to meet Christ in the air, and all the unsaved will be
left on the earth. Thus, the rapture will occur in reverse of the order of
things in the days of Noah and, therefore, the reverse of the order at Jesus'
coming immediately after the Great Tribulation.[12]

Toussaint similarly notes,
"Since it is parallel in thought with those who were taken in the judgment
of the flood, it is best to refer the verb to those who are taken for judgment
preceding the establishment of the kingdom."[13]

Order of the Other Matthean Judgments

Matthew's description of the flood of Noah's day, which depicts
the unbelievers being taken in judgment while the believers are left behind to
enter the new dispensation, is by no means an isolated case. All of the
Matthean judgments follow the same pattern. For example, in the parable of the
wheat and the tares (Matt 13:24-30), it is the tares or the unbelievers that
are first gathered to be burned (Matt 13:30a, 41-42). Then the wheat or the
saved are left behind to enter the kingdom (Matt 13:30b, 43). Moreover, in the
parable of the dragnet (Matt 13:47-50), it is the bad fish or the unbelievers
that are first gathered to be thrown away (Matt 13:48b, 49-50). Then the good
fish, or the saved, are left behind to enter the kingdom (Matt 13:48a). In
addition, in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31-46), it is the
goats, or the unbelievers, that are first cast off the earth into judgment
(Matt 25:41-46). Then the sheep, or the saved, are left behind to enter the
kingdom (Matt 25:34-40). Matthew's consistent pattern of judgment found throughout
his book is that the unsaved are taken into judgment while the saved are left
behind to enter into the kingdom. Thus, the same order of events is likely in
view in Matt 24:40-41. Such an order would contradict the order of the rapture where
the exact opposite chronology will transpire.

The Lukan Parallel Passage

Luke 17:26-37 offers the parallel passage to Matthew
24:40-41:

"And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so
it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were
drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day
that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. It was
the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking,
they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building;
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from
heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just the same on the day that the Son
of Man is revealed. On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods
are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is
in the field must not turn back. Remember Lot's wife. Whoever seeks to keep his
life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell
you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the
other will be left. There will be two women grinding at the same place; one
will be taken and the other will be left. Two men will be in the field; one
will be taken and the other will be left." And answering they said to Him,
"Where, Lord?" And He said to them, "Where the body is,
there also the vultures will be gathered."

In addition to Matthew's description of one man taken from
the field and the woman taken away from grinding, Luke adds the one taken from
the bed and the other left. Luke also records the disciples' question "Where,
Lord?" (Luke 17:37a). This inquiry relates to the locale to where those
taken will go since Christ made it clear that those not taken will be left upon
the earth.Christ answers,
"Where the body is, there also the vultures will be
gathered" (Luke 17:37b). "Vultures" refers to those birds of
prey that gorge on the flesh of corpses.[14]
Such imagery connotes judgment where the birds of prey will feast upon
carcasses of the deceased (Matt 24:28; Rev 19:17-18, 21). By using such
imagery, Christ explains that those taken in Luke 17:34-36 are those taken into
destruction and judgment. Of course, the rapture involves the opposite. At the
rapture, those taken are taken into glory rather than judgment. Thus, the Lukan
parallel passage with its emphasis upon being taken into judgment substantially
weakens the rapture interpretation of Matthew 24:40-41.[15]
In sum, the connection with Noah's day, the consistent order of the other
Matthean judgments, and the Lukan parallel passage all negate a rapture
interpretation of Matt 24:40-41.

Inadequacy of Arguments Favoring a Rapture in Matt 24:40-41

Thus far we have
seen that Matthew 24:40-41 should not be given a rapture interpretation based
upon the place of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew's overall argument and based
upon an examination of the textual details within and surrounding Matthew
24:40-41. This section furthers this same thesis by noting the inadequacy of
the arguments for a rapture interpretation of Matthew 24:40-41. Such arguments
include the use of paralambanō in
verses 40-41, the rapture is in view in Matt 24:31, the day or hour of the
Second Advent can be discerned once the Tribulation period begins, and that
normal life activities as depicted in Matt 24:40-41 could not take place at the
end of the Tribulation period.

The Use of Paralambanō in
Matthew 24:40-41

One of the reasons
various interpreters believe that the rapture is in view in Matt 24:40-41 is because
of Matthew's switch from airō
when describing those "taken" in the Flood in verse 39 to paralambanō when describing those
"taken" in verses 40-41. Those who believe that the rapture is in
view in verses 40-41 are quick to point out that paralambanō in these verses is the same word that John used to
depict those taken in the rapture in John 14:3. According to this argument,
Christ must also be describing taking believers to Himself in Matt 24:40-41.
However, several reasons make it apparent that Matthew's use of paralambanō in these verses need
not signal to the reader that the apostle has suddenly switched to a discussion
of the rapture.[16]

First, paralambanō is a non-technical
term. It is not a word that has the same definition everywhere it is used.
While paralambanō can refer to
the Lord taking believers to Himself (John 14:3), it also can refer to a taking
away in a negative sense. For example, it is used to describe Satan taking
Jesus to a venue for purposes of temptation (Matt 4:5, 8), a demon taking other
demons for the purposes of indwelling a man (Matt 12:45), and Christ being
taken away to be abused (Matt 27:27) and eventually crucified (John 19:16). Thus,
whenever paralambanō is used,
its meaning must be determined from its context. As explained previously, the
context of Matt 24:40-41 involves judgment rather than deliverance.[17]

Second, it is
possible for two different words for "taking" to describe the same
event rather than different events. For example 2 Kgs 2 uses two different
Hebrew words to describe Elijah being taken to heaven. Second Kgs 2:1 uses alah to describe this taking. Second Kgs
2:3, 5 uses laqach to describe the
same event. Interestingly, John 19:15-16 uses both airō (vs. 15) and paralambanō
(vs. 16) to denote the singular event of Christ being taken away for
crucifixion. Why cannot Matthew 24:39-41 also use the same two words to allude
to the singular event of Christ's return in judgment?

Third, there is a
logical reason for the use of two different Greek words in Matt 24:39-41. When
God took the unbelievers away into judgment in Noah's day, he used an impersonal
agency to do so: the floodwaters. However, when He takes the unbelievers away
into judgment following His return, He will use a personal agency to do so: angelic
beings. Although angelic beings are not specifically mentioned in Matt
24:40-41, they are mentioned in the Matthean parallel passages describing the
future judgment awaiting unbelievers at Christ's Second Advent (Matt 13:39,
49). Thus, the switch in Greek words in Matt 24:39-41 may simply signal the
different agencies that the Lord uses in judgment rather than a switch in a
judgment-coming (Matt 24:39) to a rapture-coming (Matt 24:40-41) . Thus,
Toussaint summarizes, "The differences in verbs can be accounted for on
the basis of accuracy of description."[18]

Rapture in Matt 24:31?

Many are confident
that the rapture is in view Matt 24:40-41 because the rapture is also conspicuous
in the same context (Matt 24:31). Matt 24:31 says, "And He will
send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and
THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the
four winds, from one end of the sky to the other." Those who hold to a
rapture interpretation of this passage point to the numerous similarities
between the coming of Christ in Matt 24:31 and other rapture passages such as 1
Thess 4:13-18 and 1 Cor 15:50-58. Examples of such similarities include Christ's
coming in a cloud (Matt 24:30), the sounding of a trumpet, and the world-wide
gathering of believers (Matt 24:31).[19]
On account of these similarities with other well-known rapture passages, many
are confident that the rapture is in view in Matthew 24:31 and thus also in
Matt 24:40-41.

However, it is a logical fallacy to assume that mere similarity
is the same as equality. For example, although one can point to similarities
between my two automobiles, this is not to say that one automobile is the same
as the other. While there may be some points of similarity between Matt 24:31
and other rapture passages, this does not necessarily mean that the two
passages are speaking of the same event especially if it can be shown that
there are substantial differences between the passages. Many observe that any
similarities between Matt 24:31 and other rapture passages are outweighed by
substantial differences. Ice observes, "In 1 Thessalonians 4 believers are
gathered in the air and taken to heaven, while in Matthew 24 they are gathered
after Christ’s arrival to earth.."[20]
Sproule queries:

Where does Paul mention the darkening of the sun (Matt.
24:29), the moon not giving its light (Matt. 24:29), the stars falling from the
sky (Matt. 24:29), the powers of the heavens being shaken (Matt. 24:29), all
the tribes of the earth mourning (Matt. 24:30), all the world seeing the coming
of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:30), or God sending forth angels (Matt.24:31)?[21]

Feinberg similarly notes:

Notice what happens when you examine both passages carefully.
In

Matthew the Son of Man comes on the clouds, while
in 1 Thessalonians 4

the ascending believers are in them. In Matthew the
angels gather the

elect; in 1 Thessalonians the Lord Himself (note
the emphasis) gathers the

believers. Thessalonians only speaks of the voice of the archangel. In

the Olivet Discourse nothing is said about a
resurrection, while in the latter

text it is the central point. In the two passages
the differences in what will

take place prior to the appearance of Christ is
striking. Moreover, the order of ascent is absent from Matthew in spite of the
fact that it is the central part of the epistle.[22]

In order to equate Matt 24:31 with
the rapture passages, a reconciliation of all of these differences is needed
rather than merely highlighting a handful of similarities.

Also, Showers explains how the imagery of Matt 24:31 has
more in common with what the Old Testament predicts concerning Israel's
eschatological regathering rather than the church's rapture.

First, because of Israel’s persistent rebellion
against God, He declared that

He would scatter the Jews “into all the winds”
(Ezek. 5:10, 12) or “toward all

winds” (Ezek. 17:21). In Zechariah 2:6 God stated
that He did scatter them

abroad “as four winds of the heavens.” . . . God did
scatter the Jews all over

the world. Next, God also declared that in the
future Israel would be gathered from the east, west, north, and south, “from
the ends of the earth” (Isa. 43:5-7).

We should note that in the context of this promise,
God called Israel His

“chosen” (vv. 10, 20). . . Just as Jesus indicated
that the gathering of His elect from the four directions of the world will take
place in conjunction with “a great trumpet” (literal translation of the Greek
text of Mt. 24:21), so Isaiah 27:13 teaches that the scattered children of
Israel will be gathered to their homeland in

conjunction with the blowing of “a great trumpet”
(literal translation of the

Hebrew). . . Gerhard Friedrich wrote that in that
future eschatological day “a great horn shall be blown (Is. 27:13)” and the
exiled will be brought back by that signal. Again he asserted that in
conjunction with the blowing of the great trumpet of Isaiah 27:13, “There
follows the gathering of Israel and the return of the

dispersed to Zion.” It is significant to note that
Isaiah 27:13, which foretells this future regathering of Israel, is the only
specific reference in the Old Testament to a “great” trumpet. Although Isaiah
11:11-12 does not refer to a great trumpet, it is parallel to Isaiah 27:13 because
it refers to the same regathering of Israel. In its

context, this passage indicates that when the
Messiah (a root of Jesse, vv. 1,

10) comes to rule and transform the world as an
“ensign” (a banner), He will

gather together the scattered remnant of His people
Israel “from the four corners of the earth.”[23]

In fact, contextually, the regathering spoken of in Matt
24:31 harks back to Matt 23:37. There Christ expressed a desire to gather an
unwilling first-century Israel. He clearly identifies His audience as Israel in
verse 37 with the twofold repetition of the word "Jerusalem." However,
although first-century Israel was unwilling to be gathered by her Messiah, a
future generation of repentant Jews will be regathered by Christ upon His
return at the conclusion of the Tribulation. Matthew uses the same verb
"gather" (episynagō)
in both Matt 23:37 and Matt 24:31 in order to draw this connection.

Day or Hour Can Be Known in the Tribulation

Those who argue that Matt 24:40-41 is speaking of the
rapture rather than the Second Advent note that the context favors the rapture.
It is contended that this point is especially true considering Matt 24:36,
which says, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of
heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." It is argued that the phrase
“no one knows the day or the hour” (24:36) cannot be speaking of the Second
Advent at the end of the Tribulation since people would know the time of that
event. This event will take place exactly seven years after the Antichrist
enters into the peace treaty with Israel (Dan 9:27). Because, Matt 24:36 cannot
be speaking of the Second Advent, it must be speaking of the rapture.

However, the phrase in verse 36 could be given from the
perspective of an unbeliever.[24]
Unbelievers will always be unprepared for Christ's return regardless of what
era of history they are living in. Matthew 24:42 exhorts believers to be alert.
The same Greek verb for "alert" (grēgoreō)
as used in Matt 24:42 is also used in 1 Thess 5:6 and Rev 16:15. Both 1 Thess
5:4-6 and Rev 16:15 speak of the nonalert state of the unbeliever regarding
Christ's return. First Thess 5:3 says, "While they are saying, 'Peace and
safety!' then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a
woman with child; and they will not escape." By contrast, the child of God
will not be caught off guard for Christ's return since he is a child of the day
rather than the night (1 Thess 5:4).

Also, Revelation 16:15 provides the following parenthetical
statement after the sixth bowl judgment: "Behold, I am coming like a
thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he
will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame." Late in the
Tribulation, this verse analogizes Christ's return to a thief coming upon an
unprepared victim. Thus, even after eighteen of Revelation's nineteen judgments
have transpired, unbelievers in the Tribulation will still be caught off guard
by Christ's return.

Interpreting verse 36 from the perspective of the unbeliever
fits the parallel with Noah's day (Matt 24:37-39) that immediately follows
verse 36 and concludes before verses 40-41. In Noah's day, it was the unbelievers
who were caught off guard when the Flood-judgment finally came (Matt 24:39)
despite Noah's faithful warning of coming judgment (2 Pet 2:5) for 120 years
(Gen 6:3). Because Matt 24:36 is similarly narrated from the perspective of the
unbeliever, it can be understood as a reference to the Second Coming rather
than the rapture. Although the time of the rapture is unknown to all, the time
of the Second Advent at the end of the Tribulation period will be unknown to
unbelievers.

Normal Life Activities at the End of the Tribulation?

A final argument used to contend that Matt 24:40-41 is
speaking of the rapture rather than Christ's judgment-coming in His Second
Advent at the end of the Tribulation relates to how normal life seems to be
described in these verses. They speak of people working in the field, grinding
at the mill, sleeping in the bed (Luke 17:34), etc...Given the global judgments
of the Tribulation, how could normal life patterns be taking place prior to
Christ's Second Advent? Therefore, according to some, it makes far more sense
to associate these events with the rapture before the Tribulation unfolds. Dave
Hunt notes:

When Christ says, “As it was in the days of Noah and
Lot,” it is absolutely certain that He is not describing conditions that will
prevail at the time of the Second Coming. Therefore, these must be the
conditions which will prevail just prior to the Rapture at a different
time—and, obviously, before the devastation of the tribulation period.[25]

By way of response, the primary purpose of these verses is
not to describe normal life patterns. Christ's major point was to emphasize the
unprepared state of the unbeliever. It is possible that verses 40-41 are a
figure of speech depicting unbelievers being caught up in the system of the Antichrist
during the Tribulation. Therefore these verses are not speaking of ordinary
life. Unbelievers in the Antichrist's system will be so caught up in everyday
life that they will not be looking for Christ's return. Consequently, they will
be caught off guard when the Second Advent takes place. This point is the major
one that Christ seeks to get across rather than describing life behavior at the
Tribulation's conclusion. In sum, the arguments used by those seeking to find
the rapture rather than the Second Advent in Matt 24:40-41 are answerable. Such arguments include the use of paralambanō in verses 40-41, the
rapture is in view in Matt 24:31, the day or hour of the Second Advent can be
discerned once the Tribulation period begins, and that normal life activities
as depicted in Matt 24:40-41 could not take place at the end of the
Tribulation.

Conclusion

Matthew 24:40-41 is
not a rapture text. This point has been established through an examination of
the role of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew's overall argument, through an
examination of the textual details within and surrounding Matthew 24:40-41, and
by noting the inadequacy of the arguments for a rapture interpretation of
Matthew 24:40-41. Since the rapture is not found in Matt 24:40-41, is there a
better place to locate the rapture in Christ's teaching? The second part of
this paper provides the answer to this important question.

John 14:1-4

This section of the
paper will attempt to argue that Christ spoke of the rapture of the church in
John 14:1-4. These verses say:

Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God,
believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were
not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and
prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that
where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am
going.

This section will attempt to make this argument by noting several
preliminary reasons why interpreters should be open to a rapture teaching in
this passage, by contending that the details of the text favor a rapture
interpretation, and by noting the inadequacy of the views advocating a non-rapture
interpretation of John 14:1-4.

Preliminary Reasons

There are five
preliminary reasons why interpreters should be open to a rapture interpretation
in John14:1-4 even before an exegesis of this passage is attempted. These
reasons include the significance of the Upper Room Discourse, the
eschatological flavor of the discourse, the eschatological interpretation of
John 14:1-4 found in the early church fathers, the passage's congruity with the
Jewish marriage analogy, and the parallels between John 14:1-4 and 1 Thess
4:13-18.

Significance of the Upper Room Discourse

As previously explained, the position of the Olivet
Discourse (Matt 24‒25) in Matthew's overall argument plays a significant
role in ascertaining whether Christ is speaking of the rapture in Matt
24:40-41. Similarly, the position of the Upper Room Discourse (John 13‒17)
in John's overall argument plays a significant role in discerning whether
Christ is speaking of the rapture in John 14:1-4. John explains his purpose in
writing his Gospel in 20:30-31. These verses say, "Therefore many other
signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not
written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in
His name." First, John writes for the Christological
purpose of convincing his readers of Christ's divine identity through a
selective record of His signs. Second, John writes for the soteriological purpose of invoking his readers toward faith in
Christ. John desires for unbelievers to "believe" in Jesus and for
believers to keep on "believing" in Him for purposes of their
practical sanctification.

To this end, John unfolds the heavenly genealogy of Christ in
his prologue (1:1-18) and the divine identity of Jesus through a record of His
seven signs and discourses (1:19‒11:57). This section is sometimes
referred to as the Book of Signs. As predicted in the Old Testament (Dan 9:25),
Christ showed up on an exact timetable (Luke 19:38-39, 42, 44) to present His
messianic credentials to the nation during His Triumphal Entry (John 12). At
this point, the nation of Israel formally rejected Christ as their king. John
12:37 accentuates Israel's unbelief when it says, "But though He had
performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him."

John's record of this national rejection at the Triumphal
Entry (John 12) then leads to his recording of the Upper Room Discourse (John
13‒17). There Christ reveals a new or mystery age known as the Church
Age. Although the development of Church Age doctrine is fully accomplished in
the Pauline epistolary literature, Christ reveals many Church Age truths in
seed form in the Upper Room Discourse. Paul's teaching would bring these seeds
to full maturity. Thus, in this discourse, Christ noted, "I have many more
things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the
Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not
speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will
disclose to you what is to come" (John 16:12-13). Chafer explains:

The discourse embodies, in germ form, every essential
of that system of doctrine which is distinctively Christian. Being addressed to
Christians, it does not present truth which is peculiar to Israel, and being addressed
to those who are saved, it does not present any feature of salvation by grace
which is made possible through the death and resurrection of Christ, which
truth is implied. This portion is like a seed plot in which all is found that
is later developed in the epistles of the New Testament. It serves as Christ’s
farewell address to believers—those whom the Father has given Him out of
the cosmos world.[26]

Thus, the Upper Room Discourse contains many seed truths
that are given greater clarification and explanation in the epistles.[27]
Such examples include the believers' oneness in Christ (John 17:20-23; Eph
2:11-22), the Spirit's permanent residence in the believer (John 14:16; Eph
4:30), the believer's union with Christ (John 14:20; Gal 2:20; Rom 6:1-14), the
believer's opposition to the world (John 15:18-19; Jas 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17),
the necessity for the believer to stay in fellowship with Christ (John13:10;
15:1-17; 1 John 1:5-7, 9), abiding in Christ as a prerequisite for fruit
bearing (John 15:1-7; Phil 4:13), the believer's election (John 15:16; Eph
1:4); Christ as the ultimate model of sacrificial living and service (John
13:1-20; Phil 2:5-11), the necessity of divine discipline in the believer's
life (John 15:2; Heb 12:5-11), Satan as the god of this age (John 12:31; 14:30;
16:11; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2), the defeat of Satan at the cross (John 12:31;
16:11; Col 2:15; Heb 2:14), the Spirit as the inspirer of all Scripture (John
14:26; 16:13; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21), the Spirit as the illuminator of all
Scripture (John 14:26; 16:13; 1 Cor 2:14; 1 John 2:20, 27), Christ's provision
of peace in the midst of adversity (John 14:27; Phil 4:7), the necessity of the
Spirit's convicting ministry as a prerequisite for salvation (John 16:7-11; 1
Cor 2:14; 2 Cor 4:4), the normalcy of tribulations in the present age (John
16:33; Jas 1:2-4), the believer as the ultimate over- comer (John 16:33; 1 John
4:4; 5:4-5), Christ's present session at the Father's right hand (John
14:12-14; 17:5; Heb 8:1; 10:12-13), the power of prayer (John 14:12-14; Eph
6:18-20; Jas 5:16), the inerrancy of Scripture (John 17:17; 2 Tim 3:16), and
the disclosure of Eschatology (John 16:13; 2 Thess 2:1-12).

Since the Upper Room Discourse reveals Church Age truth in
germ form, it should come as no great surprise that Christ would also disclose in
this discourse how the earthly program of the church will conclude. Christ
provides this very teaching through an initial and brief reference to the
rapture in John 14:1-4. Conversely, because the focus of the Olivet Discourse
is upon Israel's future restoration, it is less likely to find a rapture
passage in Matt 24‒25. The different literary emphases between the Olivet
Discourse and the Upper Room Discourse are captured on the following chart:

Eschatological Flavor of the Upper Room Discourse

Those who deny that John 14:1-4 is a rapture passage often point
out that John's Gospel in general and the Upper Room Discourse in particular
are not focused upon Eschatology. While it is true that John and the Upper Room
Discourse do not focus upon Eschatology to the same magnitude as does Matthew's
Gospel and the Olivet Discourse, it is an overstatement to say that John's
Gospel and the Upper Room Discourse make no eschatological contribution. At
least three reasons can be given as to why an eschatological insertion should
not be surprising in John 13‒17.[29]
First, eschatological statements can be found sprinkled throughout John's
Gospel as well as in the Upper Room Discourse. Examples include references to
the two final resurrections (John 5:29; Dan 12:2; Acts 24:15; Rev 20:4-5), Israel's
future acceptance of the future Antichrist in lieu of the true Christ (John
5:43; Dan 9:27a), Christ's promise to preserve and resurrect the believer in
the last day (John 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26), and the coming of the Spirit who
will disclose "things to come" (John 16:7, 13).

Second, John likely bypassed many eschatological statements
that Christ made in the Upper Room Discourse since they were not germane to the
apostle's purpose in writing. John, who wrote his gospel roughly 60 years after
the discourse was given, did not write for the primary purpose of disclosing
eschatological truth. Rather he wrote for the main purpose of encouraging faith
in Christ (John 20:30-31). Given John's candid admission of selectivity
employed throughout his Gospel (John 20:31; 21:25), he could have very well
omitted many eschatological-oriented statements made by Christ in the Upper
Room Discourse that had no direct bearing upon his Christological and soteriological
purpose in composing his Gospel.

Third, according to Edersheim's reconstruction of the events
in the upper room, Christ's promise in John 14:1-4 followed closely on the
heels of two eschatological promises.[30]
The first of these is Christ's promise in Matt 26:29: "But I say to you, I
will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I
drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." The second of these is the
reading of Psalm 118:26 in the progression of the Seder celebration. This Psalm
says, "Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the LORD; We have
blessed you from the house of the LORD." This verse has tremendous
messianic and eschatological implications (Matt 21:9; 23:39). Thus, these two
promises furnish the eschatological context for Christ's revelation of the
rapture in John 14:1-4. In sum, the preceding reasons indicate that the Upper
Room Discourse exhibited the appropriate eschatological background for Christ
to unveil the rapture in John 14:1-4.

Church Fathers

There exists support for a "heavenly and
eschatological" interpretation of John 14:1-4 among the earliest church
fathers. Gunn cites and quotes five Ante-Nicene fathers who interpreted John
14:1-4 in this manner. They include Papias (ca. 110), Irenaeus (ca. 130-202),
Tertullian (ca. 196-212), Origen (ca. 182-251), and Cyprian (d. 258).[31]
Thus Gunn concludes:

So we see that, from the earliest years following the
death of the apostle John, through the mid third century, the promise of John
14:1-3 was seen in terms of a future coming to receive believers to heaven. The
ante-nicene fathers did not think that this promise had been fulfilled either
in Christ’s own resurrection or in the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
And since the promise was seen as something to be fulfilled in conjunction with
the believer’s bodily resurrection, they clearly were not thinking in terms of
multiple comings being fulfilled at individual Christians’ deaths, much less of
a spiritual coming at the salvation of each individual Christian, but of a future
day when all believers will be raised to receive their rewards.[32]

Gunn further observes:

Interestingly, references to John 14:1-3 virtually
disappear when perusing the writings of the Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers.
This is a bit surprising, given the abundance of material in these later
writers when compared with the Ante-Nicenes. I would assume that with the rise
of Augustinian amillennialism and its optimistic interpretation regarding the
present arrival of the Kingdom of God, the kind of hope held out in John 14:1-3
ceased to hold relevance.[33]

Jewish Marriage Analogy

Christ's relationship to His church is analogous to that of
a groom to his bride (Eph 5:22-33; 2 Cor 11:2). Thus, the New Testament uses
the Jewish marriage custom as an analogy to depict the relationship between
Christ and the church. There are seven aspects to this relationship.[34]
First, the groom travels to the home of the bride's father and pays the betrothal contract price for the hand of
the bride. This step is the equivalent of Christ's death that paid the price
necessary for the church to enter into a relationship to Him (1 Cor 6:19-20).
Second, during the betrothal period,
the groom is temporarily separated from the bride in order to prepare temporary
dwelling places in his father's house. These dwellings would eventually be indwelt
by the groom and his new bride. This step represents Christ's Ascension and the
beginning of the Church Age. Here, Christ is temporarily separated bodily from
His church as He is preparing temporary dwelling places for His bride in His
Father's house (John 14:2). Just as the fidelity of the groom and bride are
tested during this time of separation, the church's loyalty to Christ is currently
being tested as the church is tempted to succumb to false teaching and worldly
conduct (Jas 4:4; 2 Cor 11:2).

Third, at an unknown time, the groom returns to the bride's
home. Upon his return the groom is accompanied with escorts, is preceded by a
shout, and comes to collect his bride and take her to his father's house. This
step is the equivalent of the rapture of the church, when Christ accompanied by
angels and preceded by the shout of an archangel (1 Thess 4:16-17), will come
at an unknown time to take the church to His father's house in heaven to the
temporary dwellings He has prepared for her (John 14:3).Fourth, the bridal party returns to the
groom's father's home in order to meet wedding guests who have already
assembled. This step is the equivalent of the raptured church being taken to
heaven in order to greet Old Testament saints who are already in the presence
of the Lord. Fifth, during the consummation of the marriage stage the
wedding party waits outside the marital chamber while the new couple enters
into this chamber in order to physically consummate their new union. This step
is the equivalent of the church's marriage to Christ. Thus, at this point, the
church is no longer merely the bride of Christ but now has formally been
married to Him.

Sixth, the groom emerges from the marital chamber announcing
to the wedding party the reality of this new physical union. The groom then
returns to the marital chamber to be with his bride for seven days while the
wedding guests continue to celebrate outside the marital chamber. This step is
the equivalent of the church after the rapture being hidden with Christ in
heaven for seven years (Dan 9:27), while the events of the Tribulation
transpire on the earth below. Seventh, the groom and the bride emerge from the
marital chamber unveiled and in full view of the wedding party. The bride had
been veiled to the wedding party thus far. This step is the equivalent of
Christ and the church returning to the earth at the conclusion of the seven
year Tribulation period unveiled (Col 3:4) and visible to the entire world (Rev
1:7; 19:7-9).

With this background in mind, interpreters should be open to
a rapture interpretation of John 14:2-3. John 14:2 describes step two when
Christ departs and goes to heaven to prepare heavenly dwellings for the marriage.
John 14:3 describes step three when Christ returns to receive His bride, the
church, in the rapture and takes her to His Father's house in order to inhabit
the new dwellings. In other words, John 14:2-3 seems to be an exact fit
regarding steps two and three of the Jewish marriage custom analogy. Thus, John
14:2-3 seems to be depicting Christ's Ascension, building of temporary heavenly
dwellings, and return for the church in the rapture.

Parallels Between John 14:1-4 and 1 Thess 4:13-18

A final preliminary reason as to why interpreters should be
open to a rapture interpretation of John 14:1-4 is the parallel that this
passage has with 1 Thess 4:13-18, which is a well-known rapture text. The late
Mennonite commentator J. B. Smith demonstrates an extensive relationship
between John 14:1-4 and 1 Thess 4:13-18. Both passages use eight identical vocabulary
terms and concepts and in the same order.[35]

John 14:1-4

Verse

1 Thess 4:13-18

Verse

trouble

1

sorrow

13

believe

1

believe

14

God, me

1

Jesus, God

14

told you

2

say to you

15

come again

3

coming of the Lord

15

receive, you

3

caught up

17

to myself

3

to meet the Lord

17

be where I am

3

ever be with
the Lord

17

Interestingly, when Smith compared the vocabulary of these
two passages to Rev 19:11-21, a Second Advent text, he found no similar
parallels. He noted, "Hence it is impossible that one sentence or even one
phrase can be alike in the two lists. And finally not one word in the two lists
is used in the same relation or connection."[36]
Smith explains the significance of the parallels between John 14:1-4 and 1
Thess 4:13-18:

The words or phrases are almost an exact parallel. They
follow one another in both passages in exactly the same order. Only the
righteous are dealt with in each case. There is not a single irregularity in
the progression of words from first to last. Either column takes the believer
from the troubles of earth to the glories of heaven. It is but consistent to
interpret each passage as dealing with the same event—the rapture of the
church.[37]

Preliminary Conclusion

Even before an exegesis of John 14:1-4 is attempted, five
preliminary observations should cause an unbiased interpreter to be open to a
rapture understanding of John 14:1-4. These preliminary observations include the role that the Upper Room
Discourse plays in revealing Church Age truth in seed form, the eschatological
flavor of the discourse, the fact that the eschatological and heavenly
interpretation of John 14:1-4 is found in the early church fathers, a rapture
interpretation of John 14:2-3 fits the Jewish marriage analogy, and extensive
parallels can be found in between John 14:1-4 and 1 Thess 4:13-18.

Textual Details of John 14:1-4

Now that these
preliminary observations have been noted, an exegesis of John 14:1-4 will show
that this passage represents Christ revealing the rapture for the very first
time in biblical history. This sub-section analyzes John 14:2-4 and attempts to
show that these verses are best understood in accordance with a rapture
interpretation.

John 14:2

There are several
phrases in this verse that must be properly defined. They include the
expressions "my Father's house," "many mansions," and
"I go to prepare a place for you."

My Father's House

Although much ink
has been spilled seeking to discover the meaning behind Christ's expression
"My Father's house," perhaps the most simple and straight forward
explanation is that offered by Showers. He writes, "The Scripture
indicates that God's unique dwelling is in heaven (Dt. 26:15; Ps. 33:13-14;
Isa. 63:15; Mt. 5:16, 45; 6:1, 9). In light of this, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg
concluded that in John 14:2 'The Father's house is His heavenly abode.'"[39] It is to this location that Christ returned
following His Ascension in order to enjoy His pre-incarnate position of glory (John
17:5) at the Father's right hand (Ps 110:1) and seated on His Father's throne
(Rev 3:21). This abode is the most likely interpretation of the Father's house
in John 14:2.

Many Mansions

As many commentaries have noted, "mansions" does
not represent the best translation of the Greek noun monē. This mistranslation ultimately emanates from the
Vulgate's use of the Latin term mansiones
in its attempt to translate the Greek term monē.
Tyndale followed the Vulgate by using the English word "mansions."
This word "mansions" was later picked up and used by the KJV and
other early English translations. However, monē
has more to do with a temporary dwelling such as a watchhouse or an inn.[40]

I Go to Prepare a Place for You

The place where Christ is going is the same place where He
came from. John's Gospel and the Upper Room Discourse clearly state that He
came from heaven (John 16:28a; 17:5) and that He is going back to heaven (John
13:1; 14:12; 16:28b). Thus, the reference to "I go" could only refer
to His Ascension. Interestingly, the same Greek verb poreuomai that is translated "I go" in John 14:2 is used
elsewhere in the New Testament to depict Christ's Ascension (Acts 1:10-11; 1
Pet 3:22).[41]
In sum, John 14:2 teaches Christ's return to the very heaven from which He came
in order to prepare temporary dwellings for His disciples.

John 14:3

There are several
phrases in John 14:3 that also must be properly defined. They include the
expressions "I will come again," "and receive you to
myself," and "that where I am you may be also."

I will Come Again

Because the Greek
verb erchomai translated
"come" is in the present tense, some have suggested that this coming
had to with something that transpired in the immediate future of Christ's original
audience rather than something destined to take place in the distant future,
such as the rapture of the church. However, there are two better options for
understanding the present tense of erchomai
that still contend that Christ is here is speaking of the rapture. First, the
present tense could be an example of the use of the futuristic present. This
linguistic reality transpires when a future event is so certain that the
biblical writer presents this future event as if it were a present reality.
Wallace explains:

The present tense may be used to describe a future
reality...The present tense may describe an event that is wholly subsequent to the time of speaking, although as if it were
present...Only an examination of the context will help one see whether this use
of the present tense stresses immediacy
or certainty.[42]

Second, it is possible that the present tense is used here
to communicate imminency. Swete notes, "The present tense 'I come' is used
rather than the future, for the Return is regarded not as a distant event, but
as one ever imminent and at hand."[43]
In fact, it is common in Johannine literature to use the present tense of erchomai to describe the future coming
of an eschatological event due to that event's certainty and imminency (1 John
2:18; Rev 2:5, 16; 3:11; 16:15; 22:7; 22:12; 22:20).[44]

The word "again" (palin) is also significant. It indicates that Christ will come back
in the same way He left. According to Lenski, "The coming again is the
counterpart of the going away; visibly Jesus ascends, visibly He returns, Acts
1:9-11."[45]
Thus, Constable concludes, "Since Jesus spoke of returning from heaven to
take believersthere, the simplest
explanation seems to be that He was referring to an eschatological bodily
return (cf. Acts 1:11)."[46]

It is also possible that John through his use of palin was indicating that Christ's
Second Advent would be just as tangible, physical, and literal as His First
Advent. According to BDAG, palinrefers "to repetition in the same
(or similar) manner, again, once more,
anew of someth. a pers. has already done."[47]
Thus, "Just as His first coming involved one specific coming , not
repeated comings, so His future coming would involve one specific coming."[48]
Therefore, the expression "I will come again" in John 14:2 indicates
that Christ in the future will come singularly and bodily just as He came the
first time and just as He ascended.

And Receive You to Myself

The verb paralambanō translated
"receive" refers to Christ coming again to take the disciples to be
with Him. According to BDAG paralambanō means,"to take into close association, take (to oneself), take with/along...I will take you to myself J 14:3...with me to my home."[49]
Showers observes, "It is interesting to note that the verb translated
'receive' in Jesus' promise is used in the New Testament for the action of a
bridegroom taking his betrothed wife unto himself (Mt. 1:20, 24)."[50]

According to TDNT,
the preposition pros translated
"to" is defined as follows: "Ļρός
with the Accusative...This is very common and denotes movement 'towards.'...Spatially,
'to or towards someone or something,' primarily with an intransitive or
transitive verb expressing movement."[51]
Thus, the clause, "And receive you to Myself," refers to Christ's
return to spatially remove believers and to take them to be with Him.

That Where I am You May Be Also

The Greek word hopou
translated "where" refers to a specific place or location. According
to BDAG, the word refers to "a specific location in the present" and
is "used in connection w. a designation of place."[52]
Thus, Jesus will return to take the believer to a place where He is. This place
can hardly be the earth since there would be no need for Him to build the
heavenly dwellings spoken of in the preceding verses. Morris explains the
overall significance of this purpose clause: "The construction emphasizes
purpose...He is speaking about a firm divine purpose. It is God's plan that
Jesus will come back in due course in order that He and His followers may be in
heaven."[53]

John 14:4

Here Christ says, "And you know the way where I am
going." The Greek verb hypagō
that is translated "going" is a verb used repeatedly in John's Gospel
in reference to Christ's return to the Father. According to BDAG, the verb is "used
esp. of Christ and his going to the
Father, characteristically of J...J 7:33; 16:5a;...10, 17...13:3...8:14a;...21b,
22; 13:33;...36b...8:21a...14:28...13:36a; 14:4, 5; 16:5b; 1J 2:11."[54]
Thus, the employment of the same verb here is most likely in reference to His
Ascension.

Summary

What all of these textual details reveal is that Christ
would return through His Ascension to His Father's heavenly abode. While there,
He would prepare temporary dwellings for His disciples. However, He would also
return for His disciples at a future time. His return would be just as personal
as was His First Coming and Ascension. Upon His return He would physically take
believers to be with Him by spatially drawing them to Himself. The ultimate
purpose of this event is so that believers could dwell in their prepared,
temporal, heavenly places as well as be with Christ in the specific heavenly
place where He is. All of this information would serve as a tremendous comfort
to the disciples who were greatly troubled over the announcement over His soon
departure (John 13:1). In fact, John 14:1 makes it clear that Christ unfolded
the reality of this glorious event for the specific purpose of comforting His
distressed disciples.

Of course, such revelation of this phase of Christ's return
represents mystery truth never before disclosed. Its description is out of
harmony with any past revelation concerning the Messiah's Second Advent. Gaebelein
explains:

But here in John 14 the Lord gives a new and
unique revelation; He speaks of something which no prophet had promised, or
even could promise. Where is it written that this Messiah would come and
instead of gathering His saints into an earthly Jerusalem, would take them to
the Father's house, to the very place where He is? It is something new. And let
it be noticed in promising to come again, He addresses the eleven disciples and
tells them, "I will receive you unto Myself, that where I am ye may be
also." He speaks then of a coming which is not for the deliverance of the
Jewish remnant, not of a coming to establish His kingdom over the earth, not a
coming to judge the nations, but coming which concerns only His own.[55]

It should come as no surprise to find such mystery revelation
in the Upper Room Discourse. As previously mentioned, this discourse represents
Church Age truth in seed form awaiting the epistolary literature in order to
receive fuller amplification. Chafer has written, "The Upper Room
Discourse, in which the above passage is found, is the seed-plotof that form of doctrine which is later
developed in the Epistles. It is not strange, therefore, that the Apostle Paul
takes up this great theme for further elucidation."[56]
Not only is this true with respect to other truth germane to the Church Age but
it is equally true regarding the event that will terminate the Church's earthly
program, the rapture of the church. This is the very event that Christ
disclosed in John 14:1-4.

Inadequate Alternative Interpretations of John 14:1-4

Thus far, a rapture interpretation of John 14:1-4 has been
defended by noting several preliminary observations and by showing that the
details of John 14:1-4 speak of the rapture. However, the case for the rapture
in John 14:1-4 will now be strengthened by exploring the inadequacies of the
other major non-rapture interpretations of this passage. Many faulty attempts
have been made to de-eschatologize the passage. Such inadequate interpretations
include the views that John 14:1-4 is speaking of the death of the believer,
the believer's individual salvation, Christ's resurrection, and the coming of
the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). After the problems with these
positions are explored some problems associated with the non-pretribulational
eschatological positions will be briefly discussed.

Believer's Death

Some believe that John 14:1-4 has nothing to do with the
rapture of the church. Rather, it refers to Christ returning to receive the
believer's soul into heaven every time a believer dies.[57]
However, this position is fraught with problems. First, in John 14:3, "the
adverb 'again' (...palin ) implies that this coming will be a one-time
event like the first coming was, not many comings repeated over and over every
time a believer dies."[58]
Second, at the believer's death, it is angels rather than Christ that transport
the believer to heaven (Luke 16:22) while Christ remains in heaven awaiting the
arrival of the deceased believer (Acts 7:56). Ice explains: “The Bible never speaks of death asan event in which the Lord comes for a believer, instead,
Scripture speaks of Lazarus ‘carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom’
(Luke 16:22). In the instance of Stephen the Martyr, he saw ‘the heavens opened
up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God’ (Acts 7:56).”[59]

Third, at death, the Lord does not
come for the believer. Rather, the believer goes to the Lord (2 Cor 5:8; Philip
1:23). Gaebelein summarizes:

This error is clearly refuted by the fact that
elsewhere in the New Testament the Spirit of God tells us that the believer's
death is not the Lord coming to the dying believer, but the death of a
Christian means that he goes to be with the Lord; . . . For the believer to be
absent from the body means "present with the Lord, . . . (2 Cor. v:1-8).[60]

Fourth, the expression "I will
come again and receive you to Myself" is never used anywhere else in
reference to the believer's death.[61]
Fifth, the context of the Upper Room Discourse is the death of Christ rather
than the death of the believer.[62]

Believer's Salvation

Others contend that John 14:1-4 has nothing to do with the
rapture of the church. Rather, it refers to Christ coming to receive the new
believer every time someone believes the gospel. However, this view suffers
from the same problem dealt with in the prior discussion. The adverb “again” (palin
) implies that Christ's coming will be a one-time event like the First Coming
and not many repeated comings every time someone gets saved. Moreover, this
view fails to handle properly the localized language of John 14:1-4.

The vocabulary of John 14:1-4 is heavily localized.
Note the terms “Father’s house” (...he oikia tou patros ), “dwelling
places” (...monai ), “a place” (...topos ) “where I am” (...hopou
eimi ego ), and “where I go” (...hopou ego hupago ). Jesus could
scarcely have used more specifically localized language. Surely, He was
referring, not to the spiritual sphere ofindividualized
salvation, but to a location in heaven where He intended to take His disciples
in the great eschatological event we refer to as the rapture.[63]

Walvoord
similarly comments on the allegorical nature of this view:

One is at a loss to know how to comment on such
fanciful exegesis. If the passage says anything, it says that Christ is going
to leave them to go to heaven, not simply leave them by dying. The Father’s
house is not on earth, and Christ is not going to remain in the earthly sphere
in His bodily presence. The expression “I will come” must be spiritualized and
deprived of its real meaning in order to allow the explanation...To spiritualize
the Father’s house and make it “spiritual
abodes within His own person” is spiritualization to an extreme. Obviously
the believer is in Christ, but this is not the same as being in the Father’s house...spiritualization in
order to avoid the pretribulation rapture...extreme form of exegesis...to
escape the implication that the rapture is different from the second coming of
Christ to set up His kingdom.[64]

Christ's Resurrection

Others contend that John 14:1-4 has nothing to do with the
rapture of the church but rather refers to the fact that Christ would return to
the believer through His bodily resurrection.[65]
Advocates of this view argue that it best fits the context of the Upper Room
Discourse. There, Christ predicts His soon resurrection (John 14:18-20). Also,
John records Christ's many post-resurrection appearances (John 20:19, 26;
21:1).

However, this view also contains its share of weaknesses.[66]
First, the basic chronology of John 14:3 places the coming of Christ after His
Ascension back to the Father when it says, "If I go and prepare a place
for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself..." Earlier, it was
established that "I go" refers to Christ's Ascension. The notion that
Christ's coming represents His resurrection violates this chronology since
Christ's coming to His disciples in His resurrected body transpired before His
Ascension.

Second, it was previously noted that the adverb
"again" (palin) in John
14:3 indicates that Christ's Second Coming would be just like His First Coming.
However, the resurrection view violates this principle since Christ's coming
after His resurrection was out of the tomb and after death. By contrast, His
First Coming was from heaven. Third, it was earlier observed that the preposition
"to" (pros) in the
expression "And receive you to Myself" (John 14:3) communicates the
spatial movement of believers from earth to Christ to be with Him. However, no
spatial movement was involved when Christ resurrected and came to His
disciples. Fourth, Christ's resurrection did not take the disciples to the
prepared dwellings spoken of in John 14:2-3. Bigalke notes, "Although two
resurrection appearances of Jesus could be called a coming again (John 20:19,
26), the comfort and promise of John 14:3 is related to an eternal dwelling
place. When Jesus does 'come again' and 'receive' His disciples, it is
permanent."[67]

Coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)

Others contend that John 14:1-4 has nothing to do with the
rapture of the church. Rather, the passage refers to a spiritual coming of the
Holy Spirit to the church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Keener explains:

As the chapter proceeds, one learns that the coming
again in verse 3 refers to Jesus’ coming after the resurrection to give the
Spirit (v. 18)...The “Father’s house” would be the temple (2:16), where God
would forever dwell with his people (Ezek 43:7, 9; 48:35; cf. Jn 8:35). The
“dwelling places” (NASB, NRSV) could allude to the booths constructed for the
Feast of Tabernacles but probably refer to “rooms” (cf. NIV, TEV) in the new
temple, where only undefiled ministers would have a place (Ezek 44:9–16;
cf. 48:11). John presumably means this language figuratively for being in
Christ, where God’s presence dwells (2:21); the only other place in the New
Testament where this term for “dwelling places” or “rooms” occurs is in 14:23,
where it refers to the believer as God’s dwelling place (cf. also the verb
“dwell”—15:4–7)...In this context, John probably means not the
Second Coming but Christ’s return after the resurrection to bestow the Spirit
(14:16–18). In Jewish teaching, both the resurrection of the dead (which
Jesus inaugurated) and bestowal of the Spirit indicate the arrival of the new
age of the kingdom.[68]

The NET Bible offers a similar
explanation:

Most interpreters have understood the reference
to my Father’s house as a reference to heaven, and the dwelling
places (μονή,
monē) as the permanent
residences of believers there. This seems consistent with the vocabulary and
the context, where in v. 3
Jesus speaks of coming again to take the disciples to himself. However, the
phrase in my Father’s house was used previously in the Fourth Gospel in 2:16
to refer to the temple in Jerusalem. The author in 2:19-22
then reinterpreted the temple as Jesus’ body, which was to be destroyed in death
and then rebuilt in resurrection after three days. Even more suggestive is the
statement by Jesus in 8:35,
“Now the slave does not remain (μένω,
menō) in the household forever,
but the son remains (μένω)
forever.” If in the imagery of the Fourth Gospel the phrase in my Father’s
house is ultimately a reference to Jesus’ body, the relationship of μονή to
μένω
suggests the permanent relationship of the believer to Jesus and the Father as
an adopted son who remains in the household forever. In this case the “dwelling
place” is “in” Jesus himself, where he is, whether in heaven or on earth. The
statement in v. 3,
“I will come again and receive you to myself,” then refers not just to the
parousia, but also to Jesus’ postresurrection return to the disciples in his
glorified state, when by virtue of his death on their behalf they may enter
into union with him and with the Father as adopted sons. Needless to say, this
bears numerous similarities to Pauline theology, especially the concepts of
adoption as sons and being “in Christ” which are prominent in passages like Eph 1.
It is also important to note, however, the emphasis in the Fourth Gospel itself
on the present reality of eternal life (John
5:24, 7:38-39, etc.) and the possibility of worshiping the Father “in the
Spirit and in truth” (John
4:21-24) in the present age. There is a sense in which it is possible to
say that the future reality is present now.[69]

This view seems to be built around at least four
presuppositions. First, the phrase "My Father's house" (οἰκίᾳ
τοῦ Ļατρός μου)
in John 14:2 refers to the temple. The logic behind this idea is that the
phrase is used only one other time in John's Gospel. In John 2:16, Christ uses
the expression "My Father's house" (Ļατρός
μου οἶκον) in relation to the
temple. Second, the expression can have a metaphorical meaning since Christ
used the phrase in this same context to describe His body (John 2:19-22). Paul also
used temple imagery to depict the believer's body (1 Cor 6:19) and the church
(1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:20-22). Third, dwelling places (monē) in
John 14:2 refers to the indwelling of the Father and Son in the believer. The
rationale for this point is that monē is used only one other
time in the entire New Testament (John 14:23). This usage is just a few verses
later in the very same chapter in reference to the indwelling of the Father and
Son in the believer. Fourth, the verbal form of the noun monē is menō. This latter word is used of
abiding or indwelling elsewhere in John's Gospel (John 8:35) and in the Upper
Room Discourse (John 15:4-7).

Before responding to these presuppositions, let us first
note some general problems with the view.[70]
First, as indicated earlier, the
proposition "to" (pros) in
the expression "and receive you to Myself" (John 14:3) communicates
the spatial movement of believers from earth to Christ to be with Him. However,
no spatial movement was involved when the Spirit came upon believers in Acts 2.
Second, it was previously noted that the adverb "again" (palin) in John 14:3 indicates that
Christ's Second Coming would be just like His First Coming. According to
Lenski, "The coming again is the counterpart of the going away; visibly
Jesus ascends, visibly he returns, Acts 1:9-11."[71]
When the Spirit was poured out upon the church in Acts 2, Christ never
physically returned just as He physically left. Rather, He remained in heaven
at the Father's right hand (Acts 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; 1 Pet 3:21-22).
Third, this view renders nonsensical the expression "receive you to
Myself" (John 14:3). The Holy Spirit did not receive believers in Acts 2.
By contrast, the Scripture routinely indicates that it was the other way
around. Believers received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22; Acts 2:38; 8:15-17).

Now that these general problems with the position have been
introduced, let us respond to the presuppositions that the view is built upon. First,
while it is true that the expression "My Father's house" (John 14:2)
is used only in John 2:16, the John 2:16 reference to "house" is
masculine (oikos) and the John 14:3
reference to "house" is feminine (oikia).
Although oikos is typically used with
the genitive "of God" to refer to the Temple in both the LXX and John
2:16, oikia is never used in this
manner.[72]
According to TDNT:

In the NT, too, we find both οἶκος and
οἰκία;
the gen. τοῦ θεοῦ is usually linked with
οἶκος
, not οἰκία
(though cf. Jn. 14:2: ἐν
τῇ οἰκίᾳ
τοῦ Ļατρός μου ). As in
the LXX, οἶκος
τοῦ θεοῦ is used in honour of the earthly
sanctuary of Israel. No other sacred or ecclesiastical structure is called by
this term in the NT sphere. But the Christian community itself is the →
ναὸς
τοῦ θεοῦ , the οἶκος
τοῦ θεοῦ (Hb. 3:6; 1 Pt. 4:17; 1 Tm. 3:15)
and the οἶκος
Ļνευματικός (1 Pt. 2:5). It
may be supposed that this usage was common to primitive Christianity and became
a permanent part of the preaching tradition… Jn. 14:2f … This saying, which
would seem to have lost its original form, is fairly isolated in the context,
and is perhaps older than the sayings around it. … the Father’s dwelling has
places of rest for the afflicted disciples of Jesus.[73]

In sum, the coming of the Holy
Spirit view is built upon connecting the common expression "my Father's
House" in John 14:2 with the temple imagery of the identical expression
found in John 2:16. However, the view disintegrates when it is understood that
these two expressions are not identical given the difference in gender
regarding the noun "house" as employed in these verses.

Second, it is true that monē (John 14:2) is used
only one other time in the entire New Testament (John 14:23), and that this
usage is just a few verses later in the very same chapter in reference to the
indwelling of the Father and Son in the believer. However, the context of John
14:2 is radically different from the context of John 14:23. Gunn observes:

Though in John 14 verses 2 and 23 occur in the same
chapter, the contexts are quite different. The issue in verse 2 is the
disciples’ sorrow over Jesus’ departure to be with the Father in heaven (see
discussion on the expression “I go” below), but the focus changes in verse 15.
Verses 15-24 form a distinct unit in the Upper Room Discourse characterized by
the believer’s love for Jesus as evidenced by the believer’s keeping of Jesus’
commandments...One way of seeing this topic shift is by noting that the verb
“to love” (...agapaō)
occurs eight times in verse 15-24, but does not occur once in verses 1-14, and
the verb “to keep” (...tēreō) occurs four times in verses
15-24, but does not occur once in verses 1-14. At the beginning of this section
on loving Jesus and keeping his commandments is the promise that the Holy
Spirit would be given to the believer (verse 16). It is by means of the
Spirit’s indwelling that the believer is: (1) not left as an orphan (verse 18),
and (2) empowered to love Jesus and keep His commandments. It is Jesus’ sending
of the Spirit to indwell believers that makes us understand...monē...as located in the believer. On the
other hand, in verse 2, the location of the...monē...is fixed by where we understand
the “Father’s house” to be.[74]

The differences between these two
paragraphs are captured on the following chart:

Section

John 14:1-14

John 14:15-24

Occurrence of monē

John 14:2

John 14:23

Issue

Sorrow over
Christ's soon departure

Believer's love
for Christ

Uses of agapaō

0

8

Uses of tēreō

0

4

Meaning of monē

Dwellings in
the Father's heavenly abode

Spirit
indwelling believers

By defining monē of John 14:2 based upon how monē
of 14:23 is used in a foreign context, proponents of the Acts 2 interpretation are guilty of committing a hermeneutical error
known as "illegitimate totality transfer." "The error, arises
when the 'meaning' of a word" as derived from its use elsewhere is then
automatically read into the same word in a foreign context.[75] Words only have meanings based upon the contexts
that these words are found within. Monē of John 14:2 means something entirely different
thanmonē of John 14:23, since these uses of the same word
transpire in two completely different contexts. In sum, the coming of
the Holy Spirit view is built upon connecting the common word "monē"
in John 14:2 and John 14:23. However, the view suffers when it is understood
that these two words are not identical given the different contexts in which
they are found.

Third, it is true that the verbal form of the noun monē
(John 14:2) is menō, which is
used of "abiding" or "indwelling" elsewhere in John's
Gospel (John 8:35) and in the Upper Room Discourse (John 15:4-7). However,
equating these two words represents an exegetical fallacy known as the
"root fallacy." This fallacy "presupposes that every word
actually has a meaning bound up with
its shape or its components."[76]
For example:

nice, which comes
from the Latin nescius, meaning
"ignorant." Our "good-by" is a contraction from the
Anglo-Saxon "God be with you." Now it may be possible to trace out diachronically
just how nescius generated
"nice"; it is certainly easy to imagine how "God be with
you" came to be contracted to "good-by." But I know of no one
today who in saying such and such a person is "nice" believes that he
or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the "root
meaning" or "hidden meaning" or "literal meaning" of
"nice" is "ignorant."[77]

"Words should not be defined by
their etymology but instead by their context and use."[78]
Thus, it is inappropriate to arrive at a definition of monē based
upon how the verbal form of this word is used elsewhere. As previously
explained, John 14:2 is found within its own unique context.

In sum, the coming of the Holy Spirit view is substantially
weakened when it is understood that the various terms of John 14:2 cannot be
defined by their usage elsewhere given the unique context of John 14:1-4. This
principle is true with respect to seeking to equate the "my Father's
house" with its use in John 2:16, interpreting monē of
John 14:2 with its use in John 14:23, and defining monē with
the verbal form's use in John 8:35 and John 15:4-7. In conclusion, a rapture
interpretation of John 14:1-4 is strengthened when the untenable nature of the
non-eschatological interpretations are considered. These options include the
death of the believer, the believer's individual salvation, Christ's
resurrection, and the coming to the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts
2).

Non-Pretribulational Rapture Interpretations

Mid-Tribulation and Pre-wrath

In addition to the non-eschatological interpretations of
John 14:1-4 described above, others assign an eschatological yet
non-pretribulational understanding to the passage. Examples include the
mid-tribulation and pre-wrath positions. Yet, these perspectives have at least two
major flaws. First, they do not handle well the promise of comfort in John
14:1: "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in
Me." How could Christ's promise be a comfort if the church must first
endure any part of the wrath of God before experiencing the blessing of the
rapture. Both the mid-tribulational and pre-wrath views promote a scenario in
which the church will be present for half (mid-tribulationalism) or three
fourths (pre-wrath) of the Tribulation before participating in the rapture. Second,
these views fail to take into consideration the imminency or any moment
perspective of the passage. In John 14:1-4, Christ fails to articulate any
signs that would precede His return for the disciples. The mid-tribulational
and pre-wrath perspectives do not handle well such an imminency emphasis. They
both place signs related to the Tribulation that must take place before Christ
can return in the rapture.

Post-Tribulationalism

Giving John 14:1-4 a post-tribulational rapture
interpretation[79]
contains the same two above discussed problems associated with the
mid-tribulational and rapture views. First, the post-Tribulational rapture
interpretation damages Christ's promise of comfort (John 14:1) since it
advocates the church enduring all of the Tribulation period before experiencing
the blessing of the rapture. Second, the post-Tribulational view contends that
Tribulational signs that must precede Christ's promise to return thereby
damaging imminency. Third, the post-Tribulational view makes Christ's
preparation of the heavenly dwellings (John 14:2-3) unnecessary. Lindsey
explains:

Now if Jesus is building a dwelling place for us
in the Father's house, and if we are to go there when He comes for the Church, how could He be speaking of an event
that occurs simultaneously with the Second Advent? For at that time Jesus is
specifically and personally coming to the earth (see Zechariah 14:4-9). If the
post-tribulationalists are right, then Jesus engaged in a futile building
program. For when He comes to the earth in the second coming, He will rule out
of the earthly Jerusalem for a thousand years. Since He says He is going to
come in order that we may be with Him where
he is, we would have to be with Him here on earth. Do you see the problem?
The dwelling places in the Father's house would be unused. And worse by far,
Jesus would be guilty of telling us a lie. For as we have seen, He is coming
for the purpose of taking us to the Father's house at that time. Post-Tribulationalist
Robert Gundry doesn't keep this passage in context when he says, "Jesus
does not promise that upon His return He will take believers to mansions in the
Father's house. Instead, He promises , 'Where
I am, there you may be also.'" This makes Jesus' whole promise
ridiculous. Why would He speak of preparing a place for us in the Father's
house if He didn't mean that His return would take us there?[80]

In sum, a rapture interpretation of John 14:1-4 is
strengthened when this view is compared to the other non-eschatological
interpretations of this passage. Such non-eschatological interpretations
include the death of the believer, the believer's individual salvation,
Christ's resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost
(Acts 2). Moreover, a pre-Tribulational rapture understanding of these verses
is fortified when examining the weakness associated with other
non-pretribulational views.

Conclusion

This section has
attempted to argue that John 14:1-4 represents a promise of the rapture by
noting several preliminary reasons why interpreters should be open to a rapture
teaching in this passage, by contending that the details of the text favor a
rapture interpretation in these verses, and by noting the inadequacy of the
views advocating a non rapture interpretation of John 14:1-4.

Summary and Overall Conclusion

Did Jesus ever refer
to the rapture? There are two passages that are most commonly viewed as rapture
statements from Christ. They are Matt 24:40-41 and John 14:1-4. For the reasons
stated throughout, the Matthean text is not
a rapture teaching. However, interpreters are
on solid exegetical footing in seeing in John 14:1-4 an initial and only reference
to the rapture of the church in seed or germ form.